From Genesis to Proverbs to John (2)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NASB
The Word – What a complicated text! The NASB’s heading for this part of John’s gospel is “The Deity of Jesus Christ,” but this is an editorial theological addition. The text itself does not make such a claim directly. In fact, the word “deity” never actually appears in the Bible. The deity of Jesus must be inferred from all of the supposed Trinitarian Scriptures. In other words, this is a paradigm issue of interpretation, not a direct translation or exegesis.
With that in mind, let’s clear up some of the assumptions in this translation. First, the original Greek text makes no distinction between lower and upper case letters. In fact, the original is all upper case (capitals). The translators are the ones who choose to capitalize “Word,” giving it a unique status not found in the original, and implying that the “word” is a person. Secondly, the last phrase of the Greek text reads kai theos en ho logos, in literal order, “and-God-was-the-word.” Considerable discussion surrounds the fact that theos is not accompanied by a definite article (e.g. ho theos). In Greek, this means that the term is general, not specific. In other words, the phrase means that the word has the same character as God, but not the same identity. “ . . .in Greek, ‘God’ (theos) without the article really means ‘having the quality of God,’ not being one-to-one identified with God.”[1] Buzzard concludes:
It is most likely that John is correcting a contemporary Gnostic tendency to distinguish God from lesser divine figures. John’s intention is to bind the “Wisdom” or “word” of God as closely as possible to God Himself. The word is God’s own creative activity. Thus John says that from the beginning God’s wisdom, which the One God has with Him as an architect has his plan, was fully expressive of God.[2]
The bottom line is this: John is Jewish. He thinks like a Jew of the first century. And he is undoubtedly familiar with the Proverbs 8 personification of wisdom. Notice once again how “wisdom” is characterized in Proverbs.
Proverbs 8:22-30
“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. From everlasting I was established, from the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills I was brought forth; while He had not yet made the earth and the fields, nor the first dust of the world. When He established the heavens, I was there, when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
when He made firm the skies above, when the springs of the deep became fixed, when He set for the sea its boundary so that the water would not transgress His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth; then I was beside Him, as a master workman; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him,
As we noted previously, Fretheim describes these verses in this way:
“ . . . Woman Wisdom was present and involved with God in creating the world; indeed, she was the necessary precondition for a well-constructed world; without her the creation would not be what God intended it to be or what it has become.”[3]
“Woman Wisdom , in effect, is the ‘glue’ that holds everything together in a stable and harmonious whole.”[4]
“The fundamental characteristic of this creational reality is relatedness; it is foundational to the way in which the world works. . . . In other words, there is something basic about the very structures of creation—social as well as cosmic—that an be properly understood only in relational terms, indeed, in personal terms. In and through a discernment of the many and various interrelationships that God has built into the created order, one may be more closely attuned to God’s will for that world and act accordingly.”[5]
Isn’t it more than likely that Yohanan (John) uses the same construction in his development of the connection between the “word” and theos? Are we to assume that Woman Wisdom as characterized in Proverbs is a female person present with the One True God from the beginning? And if the answer to this question must be “No,” (a perfectly Jewish answer), then why would we conclude that the use of “word” in John is any different than the Hebraic model of Proverbs? John uses a formula already established in the minds of his readers, a formula that carries them back to Genesis and Proverbs, and implies that the Messiah is the fulfillment of a plan of God from the every beginning. In other words, the Messiah “is the perfect expression of the mind of God in human form.”[6]
It seems to me that the linkage is substantial. God has a plan in mind. That plan is first manifested in the woman, an on-purpose building project that expresses God relational structure of the creation. But that isn’t the end of the plan. Proverbs explains the intimacy of the relational structure by personifying it as Woman Wisdom, a connection that should instantly remind us of the deliberate design of the woman in Genesis. But even that isn’t the end. John adds one more piece. The Messiah is the final expression of this relational structure. He is finally the person who brings to life all that God intended in the eternal plan and the other expressions of that plan. If I want to know more of the character of God, I need to look in three places: 1) the design of the ‘ezer kenegdo, 2) the description of Woman Wisdom, and 3) the Messiah.
How far have we traveled from this intention when women are treated as second-class citizens of the Kingdom?
Topical Index: John 1:1, Proverbs 8, Genesis 2, woman, wisdom, word, Trinity
[1] James Denny as cited in Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 286.
[2] Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 286.
[3] Terrence Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation, p. 206.
[4] Ibid., p. 207.
[5] Ibid., p. 209.
[6] Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 287.
Seeker,
I’ll only accept your term for me as “scholar” with the understanding of its perhaps lesser known definition of student, pupil, because I certainly don’t consider myself the other! I’ve merely acquired a bunch of tools that I’ve somewhat learned how to use.
As of now, I’m not sure what to make of the Temple described in the latter chapters of Ezekiel. As for your reference to Isaiah 45:14-15, let’s look at similar OT passages as quoted from or alluded to in the NT. First, you may note that I wrote above (on September 17, 2016 at 10:17 am) about believers being the Temple/Sanctuary of God by virtue of the Holy Spirit (see I Cor. 6:19). With this in mind here’s 2 Corinthians 6:15-18 (NASB), with v. 16 referring to Lev. 26:12/Jer. 32:38 the last two verses alluding to a number of OT Scriptures:
The Greek word from which we translate Almighty is pantokratōr. It is found extensively in the OT referring to YHVH. In the NT it is only used in the above and throughout the Book of Revelation. Here’s one example (1:8):
There can be no debate that this refers to YHVH. However, notice the similarities between the immediately preceding statement by YHVH and the words of Christ/Messiah in the last chapter of Revelation (22:13-14):
We know this is Christ/Messiah because of the words of John 5:22-29 indicating that He is the One returning to judge.
Your admission of discomfort about being called a scholar is also mine. When I think of men like Heschel, Flusser, Bruce, Morris, Waltke and those who were my teachers, I hesitate to even suggest the term for myself. I am just a traveler, hoping to grasp a few things before I come before Him.
As the LORD wills and provides, I’ll always be a student on a never ending quest.
If one is not 100% sure if those words of Revelation 22:12-13 (not 13-14 as I erroneously prefaced that quote!) are those of Jesus Christ, then the following should help solidify any apprehension. Here is Rev. 1:17-18 with John the Revelator (which I do think is the same John as the Gospel writer, the Apostle John) narrating his fear with the words of the one whose feet he fell at following:
So, YHVH is “the Alpha and the Omega”, (i.e. “the first and the last”), and Christ/Messiah is “the first and the last”/”the Alpha and the Omega”.
Skip and other readers here may find the following of relevance and interest. I noted above my recommendation of Larry Hurtado’s book Lord Jesus Christ. Hurtado contributed to a recent volume that commented on some of the works of Richard Bauckham, and in this volume was criticism by Philip Alexander. Alexander’s position is that (as I understand him) Judaism supported the notion of ‘lesser deities’ receiving worship as akin to the worship accorded YHVH, but that doesn’t mean Jesus was recognized as God, especially on the same level as YHVH — a position opposed by historicists Hurtado and Bauckham. Hurtado wrote a brief criticism of Alexander’s essay from that volume here, and Alexander himself responded, with Bauckham weighing in as well.
To access the link you’ll have to go first to Hurado’s site:
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/dialogue-with-alexander/
…then, click on the hyperlinked “here” (otherwise, it seems a password is necessary).
The looming and large question is whether Jesus really did receive worship on par with YHVH during the 1st century (and later); and, if so, was this acceptable in orthodox Judaism, or was this strictly a Christian thing, understanding the latter as defining Christ as part of at least a binity (two ‘parts’ of the Trinity).
Interesting dialogue going on; that is good, WHEN we are challenged to be prepared for a paradigm change!
Otherwise, it will purely be words / head knowledge, and not venturing towards seeking YHWH in truth.
As I researched, I found that Alpha and Omega/ Aleph and Tau refers ONLY to YHWH, no one else, but due to translation agendas, it was accorded to Messiah as well, to align him as a deity, in the trinity theology.
The following perhaps may sort out the differences? The first / prōtos and the last / éschatos –
πρῶτος prōtos, pro’-tos; contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):—before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.
ἔσχατος éschatos, es’-khat-os; a superlative probably from G2192 (in the sense of contiguity); farthest, final (of place or time):—ends of, last, latter end, lowest, uttermost.
◄ Revelation 22:13 ► WHO would these verses be pointing to?
Parallel Verses
New International Version- am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
New Living Translation- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
English Standard Version- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
Berean Study Bible- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
Berean Literal Bible -I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
New American Standard Bible – “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
King James Bible- I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Holman Christian Standard Bible- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
International Standard Version- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
NET Bible- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end!)
New Heart English Bible- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
GOD’S WORD® Translation- I am the A and the Z, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
New American Standard 1977 – “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
Jubilee Bible 2000- I AM the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, the first and the last.
King James 2000 Bible – I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
American King James Version- I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
American Standard Version- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
Douay-Rheims Bible- I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
Darby Bible Translation- I [am] the Alpha and the Omega, [the] first and [the] last, the beginning and the end.
English Revised Version- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
Webster’s Bible Translation- I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Weymouth New Testament- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
World English Bible- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Young’s Literal Translation- I am the Alpha and the Omega — the Beginning and End — the First and the Last.
Followed by-
Rev 22:8- And I, John, am he who is seeing these things and hearing, and when I heard and beheld, I fell down to bow before the feet of the messenger who is shewing me these things;
(Who may this messenger be, who said he was not to be worshipped, but to worship God?)
Verse 9- Then saith he (messenger) unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: WORSHIP GOD.
An angel (no angels in Hebrew language, only in translations) are not our fellow servant, nor brethren of our prophets, nor of them who keep the sayings of this book. (see the confusion in translations?)
Rev 21:6 – And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Verse 7 – He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be MY SON
Clearly we can see TWO entities- Father/God and son. I see a beautiful Family!!
Then -the Beginning and the End is not the same as the First and the Last!
Beginning and the End is Eternal, for all times!
“The First and the Last” is not eternal, but temporal! E.G. The first becoming the last, and the last becoming the first!
Shalom!
Ester,
Thanks for your dialogue. Please note the book of Revelation, as with all the other NT texts, was originally written in Koine Greek, or “Common” Greek, not translated into Greek. Of course, different contexts are referring to different entities. However, you didn’t include 22:12 with 22:13, the former indicating that this Entity will be eschatological (end times) judge. In John 5:22-29 we find that God the Father has given that responsibility to the Son of God, Jesus. Moreover, 22:16 begins with “I, Jesus, have sent my angel…” Hence, considering the immediate context, these verses clearly refer to Jesus. Keep in mind that Revelation itself begins with “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”.
Ester,
I read more carefully your comment. Your distinction between “the first and the last” and “the Alpha and Omega (Aleph and Tau)” doesn’t follow. Alpha and Aleph & Omega and Tau are the first and last letters of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, respectively. That is, they mean they same thing! Same with “the beginning and the end”. The “my son” of 21:7 refers to believers who stand firm to the end; it’s not a reference to Jesus, who has already overcome!
Ester,
I see I STILL bungled it! But, I think my point can be seen; and, that is that the phrase “the beginning and the end” means the same thing as both “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the first and the last”. Even your supplied definitions of the Greek protos and eschatos reveal that!
Shalom Craig,
Skip would be better at sorting out these issue! 🙂 I maintain The Beginning and The End, cannot be the First and the Last. LOL One shows finality, the other can be reversed, is not, not seen with preconceived mindset.
I believe translators MAY have added those in.
This may change that mindset-
https://youtu.be/Zibx4n9YOUc?t=26m53s
Blessings.
Not everything shared in that video is of credence to me. Shalom!
Ester,
If you would, I’d like for you to ponder the fact the Jesus will be end times judge (John 5:22, 26-29, NASB):
How can the Messiah know the thoughts and intents of ALL those who’ve ever lived?! Does this not imply omniscience – an attribute only YHVH could possibly have?
And what if someone told him? Would that require him to be omniscient?
Yes; one could interpret that passage such that the Messiah gets His communication directly from the Father. But, that would surely put Him in an exalted position unparalleled with any human or even ‘divine’ individual! For, given the importance here – eternal lives are at stake – He would certainly have to hear the Father absolutely perfectly.
Going back to 5:19 in which Jesus makes the claim that He only does what He sees His Father doing, given that no one has ever seen God (John 1:18) and no man can see God and live (Exodus 33:20), how can Jesus be understood as less than Deity?
Perhaps it’s His ability to see the Father that provides the ability to see into any and everyone’s lives perfectly?
I note that in Exodus 33:20 the Hebrew word for “face” (panai) is rendered in the LXX (Greek translation from the Hebrew circa 200BC) prosōpon – the same word the early church used to differentiate each ‘Person’ of the Trinity.
But he is in an exalted position by being the Messiah, isn’t he? And doesn’t this parallel his own statements that he only does and says what the Father tells him? Why must be argue that he has to be God in order to know the workings of men and to judge them? Is not the Father able to supply His Son with all that is needed to be the Judge of the earth?
Also, while I note your connection of panai with prosopon, translation, even in the LXX, does not mean equivalence. hesed is a perfect example of this problem. The LXX translates hesed with at least 8 different Greek terms, none of which actually capture the full Hebrew meanings. The fact that the early Church (I assume you mean AFTER 250 CE) used a Greek term does not necessarily mean that the Church captured the full meaning or implication of the Hebrew. In fact, this phenomenon is well known when it comes to translating hesed from Ps 37:11 into the Greek text of Matthew’s third Beatitude.
Yes, I agree that just in being the Messiah He is exalted. But, the Philippians hymn indicates that it was post-resurrection that He received the “name above every name” (what does that really mean? Certainly not above YHVH!); yet, He was able to “see” God during His earthly existence. Moreover, even incarnationally He was able to ‘give life’ (John 5:21) and judge, providing “eternal life” to the spiritually dead (5:24-25). The entire pericope of John 5:19-30 indicates that He worked in concert with His Father. To my way of thinking, this implies some sense of Deity. Sure, He was obedient to His Father, just like any first century Jew would be, though, as I see it, it’s analogous, but not equative to father/son earthly relationships.
We apparently differ on just who “the Word” is. My interpretation, by what I see is a plain reading of John 1:1-18 is that the Word predates creation, thus implying He is eternal. Since I cannot conceive of anything other than God as an eternal Being, I conclude that the Word is Deity. When considered with the Son’s working in concert with His Father, the evidence is even stronger for an understanding of Deity of the Word-become-flesh.
The context of Exodus 33:20 seems fairly evident. Moses wanted to see God. God said that no man can and yet live. Protestant Bibles are translated from the Hebrew in the OT, as opposed to Roman Catholic Bibles, which use the LXX. My NIV here uses the English “face”. While I understand there are a multitude of different meanings for the Hebrew term here, this seems the most satisfactory given the context (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6440.htm). And the Greek prosōpon seems a faithful rendering of that. Of course, we know God is incorporeal, so this must be figurative language here – just as the early church intended it.
The Pentateuch was the first to be translated from the Hebrew into Greek (LXX) by Jewish Rabbis ca. 200BC. This translation rendered the word prosōpon, which I feel confident is the reason why the early church used it in the Trinitarian definition.
Ester,
Just food for thought here: Is it possible that you are not seeing what I’m seeing because of a “preconceived mindset”, predisposed to a rejection of the Trinity for whatever the reason? You may not have read my earlier comment in which I noted that I’d not grown up with any understanding of a Trinity, and when I first came to faith 16 years ago I was initially quite taken aback by the whole idea. I KNEW there was only one God; so, how could this church I was going to proclaim Jesus’ Deity?! It made no sense to me.
So, I made a search of the Scriptures. It was through this search that I found Jesus’ Deity to be true. Then I began a search to determine if the Holy Spirit was somehow a sort of separate entity from the Father. This quest led me to a Trinitarian conclusion. It doesn’t mean I understand how three could be one!
I’m aware that some pagans believed in a trinity. But, that fact doesn’t mean that what Scripture reveals to me is somehow false. Purportedly, other religious groups had a messianic-type figure who died on a cross. Do we suppose that that somehow negates the historical fact that Jesus, our Messiah died on a cross?
Your thought that “translators MAY have added” some words into Scripture creates a slippery slope. What else was added in or perhaps subtracted? Who determines what was added (or subtracted) – each individual reader? Can we believe anything recorded in Scripture?
As Skip states in his “About” page: “I have only one purpose – to find out what the text says, that is, what it meant to the audience that heard it first, what it meant in that culture’s paradigm.” A worthy objective! Given the Scripture that we have, how do we reconcile it? If Jesus describes Himself with words that YHVH uses to describe Himself, how do we reconcile that?
The text has to be primary. That’s what proper exegesis is – extracting meaning from the text. Then, given the text, how does it fit in a first century Jewish milieu? Is it possible the text actually reinterprets it?
Shalom Craig,
These issues can be quite confounding, especially having to comprehend Scriptures through translations. The “NT” was not written in English, but in Greek with Hebraic context and culture.
As usual with translations, which I do often, I think first in English then try to translate as closely as possible within my understanding and grasp of the other language. It can be quite a task.
The best I have heard on trinity, which has bothered me much, is that of a FAMILY, a Father and a son, in this case, a BEGOTTEN son, who proceeded from the Father; who did not come before the Father, nor at the same time as the Father, The Creator of all things, the Aleph and the Tau. All things begin and end with HIM, The Father.
Heb 2:16 Yeshua was of the seed of Avraham – he took hold of the seed of Avraham.
Being the son, a complete/perfect/matured, obedient son- like Father, like son, a delight to the Father, he was appointed HEIR to everything the Father has given him. FATHER and son are NOT co-equal!! Makes absolute sense!
John 14: 28 “….I am going to the Father, for my Father is greater than I”
Yeshua, the son, was given all authority and power, to judge e.g, but solely by the Father’s Word. He gets his orders from the Father, who tells him what to say or do-he goes about his Father’s business.
The son Yeshua sits on the right hand of the Father, Who sits on the Throne.
Blessings.
The Father and Son have different roles. But, look at the differences yet correlations between the Two here in John 10:25-30:
I [Jesus] give eternal life to them,
My Father, who has given them to Me
no one will snatch them out of My [Jesus’] hand.
no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
I and the Father are one.
Their roles appear to overlap, though…
Very telling is the fuller context. Before Jesus speaks these words, His adversaries ask him: “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly” (10:24, NASB). Immediately after these words they were incensed:
Clearly His adversaries’ expectations regarding the Messiah were different than what Jesus told them! By Jesus’ actions they understood Him to be claiming that He was God. I AGREE!
If we’re looking for first century Jewish conceptions of messiahship, clearly Jesus exceeded them by the Scriptural evidence here. In the Jewish milieu of the time, these words of Jesus were clearly construed as Him making the claim that He was Deity on par with the Father.
Craig,
Starting from the very beginning….
The word came from the Father , out of His ‘mouth’; presumably, the “Word” was Yeshua, that would mean he is BEGOTTEN, proceeded, of the Father, no pre-existence there.
Yeshua WAS/is created, in whatever way Father chooses to, like Chawah in a much different way than Adam; like any human being, he was planted, BIRTHED in the womb.
Yeshua is NOT omniscient- he does not know the day nor the hour when he, himself shall return, except send by the Father,as only the Father knows! Matt 24:36, Mark 13:32
Yeshua speaks and acts only as the Father has directed and instructed Him. We could hear our ABBA’s voice too in our spirits IF we are well disciplined in His ways, well aware of what He delights in to act accordingly.
If Yeshua is “fully God” and fully human, then how is it that he can be ignorant of anything, since God is omniscient or all-knowing? One might conclude that Yeshua did not know all at the time of his birth, and during His childhood. Yeshua does NOT have both a human and a divine mind!
Luke 2:40 NET Bible is insightful:
And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him.
Yeshua NEVER proclaimed to be God the Father, but functions as an obedient son exercising the power and authority of the abundant life that comes from complete obedience living in a Spirit-of-God-filled life of great discernment of which we are so lacking in; that has been given us as well- greater things we shall do, should we choose to be such a WITNESS as Yeshua was, a light and a good shepherd to the lost or, those gone/ led astray.
That is the same unique relationship we, all Torah keepers ought to have with our ABBA, as sons (in the plural to include daughters), living signs and miracles the world / creation seeks.
John 5:19-22 V 22 For the Father judges no man, but has COMMITTED all judgment to the Son:
δίδωμι dídōmi bestow, bring forth, commit, deliver (up), give, grant,
Yeshua was made a judge just there were judges /”gods” in the Book of Judges.
V 19, what Yeshua “sees” the Father do, he does. Shouldn’t we be doing that too?
We do “see” all our ABBA is doing around us, and in our lives, transforming our characters by His Ruach / Spirit, enriching us with His wisdom and discernment.
Why is there a need for Yeshua to go through suffering, if he is ‘God’?
Coming right up next……the corruption of Christianity…….
(to continue….)
Corruption of Christianity through the influence of Ancient Trinitarian gods – the idea of divine beings existing as trinities or triads long predated Christianity – from Sumaria, Babylon, India, Greece, Egypt and other areas-
Sumeria
“The universe was divided into three regions- Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods” ( The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)
Babylonia
“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity” (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).
India
The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva] replied, ‘Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.’
Greece
“In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: ‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity’ ” (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198).
Egypt
All gods are three: Amun, Re and Ptah, and there is no second to them. Hidden is his name as Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.’ . . . This is a statement of trinity, the three chief gods of Egypt subsumed into one of them, Amon. Clearly, the concept of organic unity within plurality got an extraordinary boost with this formulation. Theologically, in a crude form it came strikingly close to the later Christian form of plural Trinitarian monotheism” (Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 83-84).
Other areas
In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis.
The Phoenicians – Ulomus, Ulosuros and Eliun.
Rome – Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto.
In Germanic nations – Wodan, Thor and Fricco.
“Criosan, Biosena, and Seeva / Sheeva, are doubtless the Creeshna [Krishna], Veeshnu [Vishnu], [or the all-inclusive] Brahma, and Seeva [Shiva], of the Hindoos”
(Thomas Maurice, The History of Hindostan, Vol. 2, 1798, p. 171).
The origin of the conception is entirely pagan and was not adopted by the Church until nearly three hundred years AD.
Thereafter, true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves Christian, a very different religion by now, compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as syncretism, common in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith founded by Yeshua.
“About 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, the Church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul” ( The Story of the Christian Church, 1970, p. 33).
Roman emperor Constantine the Great was actually a sun-worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered.
He was also vehemently anti-Semitic, referring in one of his edicts to “the detestable Jewish crowd” and “the customs of these most wicked men”—customs that were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by Yeshua and the apostles.
The trinity concept was not formalized until three centuries AFTER the time of Yeshua and the apostles, that was debated and argued for decades (not to mention for centuries since), that was imposed by religious councils presided over by novices or nonbelievers for political reasons.
Emperor Theodosius—who himself had been baptized only a year before- was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major church doctrine.
As historian Charles Freeman notes: “It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own.”
Thus came forth the Catholic Christians, and those who oppose became branded heretics; those who came out known as Protestants…..
Ester,
You’ve brought in other points, but you’ve not answered how it is that Jewish leaders understood Jesus as proclaiming that He Himself was God, equating Himself with the Father (in a sense), as the Gospel of John makes plain. That is what is at issue here.
Please keep in mind that all of Scripture must be somehow harmonized.
Yes, the Word came from the Father, but not explicitly “out of His mouth”. I don’t think you can find Scripture for that. It can only be inferred with a preconception that this is so (the same thing Skip says of the Trinity – i.e., it’s by interpretation). Of course, the Father used his Word to create. In John 1:14 it is said of the Word-made-flesh that it is He “who came from the Father”, but in John 1:1-2 that the Word was “with God…in the beginning”. The Word is clearly the vehicle through whom creation came about (John 1:1-3); in Hebrews 1:2 it is explicitly stated about God (the Father) regarding His Son: “through whom [the Son] he [God (the Father)] made the universe.” Continuing to 1:3, “He [the Son] is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his nature/essence/Being, upholding all things by His powerful word.” So, it’s ‘the Word’s word’ that holds everything together! (See Colossians 1:15-17 for parallel.) This can be harmonized with Genesis 1.
Jesus Christ, who is Word-made-flesh, has a temporal beginning; but, the Word is eternal, preexisting the Incarnation – God became man without ceasing to be God. Of course, God does not sleep and God does not eat, grow weary, etc. as Jesus did. As a child, Jesus certainly had to develop just as any man would; but, this does not diminish His eternal deity. As Jesus states, “I and the Father are one” and “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), and “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:38). Sometimes Jesus spoke and acted out His humanity, others out His divinity/deity.
You wrote, “Yeshua never claimed to be God the Father”. That is exactly correct, for He is not God the Father! He is God the Son. Yet the two are One in nature/essence/Being (Heb 1:3).
You wrote: “We do ‘see’ all our ABBA is doing around us, and in our lives, transforming our characters by His Ruach / Spirit, enriching us with His wisdom and discernment.” But, not one of us can see God in a literal sense; yet, Jesus apparently did/does as per John 5:19-30. And not one of us has “life in himself” (John 5:26), as Jesus was given, implying that He possesses the same kind of life as the Father.
The evidence of false doctrine (pagan trinitarian concepts) does not diminish truth (the Trinity, as revealed in Scripture – not by individual proof-texting, but by harmonizing texts).
Hi Craig, also I would suggest you read psalms 82, which is the reply Yeshua gave to those who were accusing him of blasphemy. While I won’t give a definitive statement concerning the relationship between the father and the son, I find it interesting that if one were to read this psalm with the understanding that you apply to the messiah, the obvious conclusion is that there are a number of deities, and yet, scripture is clear that there is only One. Spend some time looking at this passage and break down the Hebrew, it’ll help clear some things up. (perhaps 🙂 ) Note that I’m not critical of your position, as I’ve been where you are. The issue is not (necessarily) what scripture says as much as it is, how we understand what’s being said. It was most unsettling to me, and still is, as to how much I had thought were my own conclusions, only to find that I had been driven to them by others. I admire your confidence in defending your position, but be wary that that same confidence can morph into a dogmatism that prevents instead of propels us to ascertain the intent of the scriptures, which I would suggest is the vehicle given to us for entering a right relationship with God and therefore men.
Hi Robert,
Yes, I’m very familiar with Messiah’s quote of Psalm 82, as this comes just after His adversaries wish to stone him for blasphemy for His claim of “I and the Father are One” (John 10:30). Here’s the context:
Once again they understood Jesus as making a claim of Deity, that He was equal in stature to the Father.
Consider that you may be approaching this from the wrong direction. Psalms 82 is the “precedent” that is used to justify the claim. In other words, the psalm provides the context of the understanding, not the other way around. Look at the psalm again and see how it applies to the conversation between the parties.
robert,
If your position is true, then why were the Messiah’s adversaries trying to seize Him (v. 39). What did He say that offended them?
So while we’re here, I noticed that you’re familiar with the “technical” end of scripture so as it is relevant to this conversation and the thread as well, I’ll share this with you. In Genesis 1 in the account of the creation of man, it says, …..and created (past tense) God, the man in His own image in (the) image of God create (not past tense) them, male and female create (not past tense) them…..we read this in the English as a description of their creation, but it reads as, a function of their creation. In other words, it describes the ability to “create” (not on the same level as God) as the ambassadors of God. It’s qualified by the term “..in His image..” doing the works of God with the heart and mind of God, as His representative. That plays out in psalms 82 and Yeshuas claims as well. You can confirm that arrangement of the text by looking at an interlinear bible, don’t take my word for it.
The reason they were trying to seize him is probably a bit more complicated than we have time for, but, in short, one could say it would probably revolve around a misunderstanding of the intent in scripture and the simple fact that their authority was in question.
Robert,
While I’m much more familiar with Greek than Hebrew, I’m pretty sure that the verb for “create (not past tense)” is roughly correlative with the Greek ‘present tense-form’, which indicates continuous action (imperfective aspect). In any case, I question your exegesis, given the context. The way I read it is: “And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He creates them.” In other words, God created man (probably a collective singular) and God (continuously) creates humanity.”
Nothing in the larger context points to man’s role except as having dominion over animals, plants, etc.
Your assertion that the Messiah’s adversaries wanted to seize Him because their authority was in question is not borne out by the context. This entire pericope begins with the Jewish leaders asking Him, “If you are the Christ/Messiah, tell us plainly” (10:24). Jesus proceeds to do just that, and they wish to stone Him for blasphemy. The issue apparently centers around their understanding that He was, in essence, calling Himself God, which is the same reason His adversaries found in their desire to kill Him in John 5:18.
Again you miss the point that Yeshua identifies himself with the ‘Elohim” of the counsel of YHWH (Elohim), not YHWH Himself.
Hi again Craig, I’ll answer this in a more forward manner, which I’m not prone to do for a number of reasons. The first among them being that I don’t want to be accused of “leading”, as I’m convinced that allowing someone to determine the intent of God’s word through independent study is a large part of the heart change that occurs, and secondly, is the fact that straight on placement of issues often tend to be taken as adversity. I pray that this isn’t taken in that manner as, it certainly isn’t the intention. On that note, the reason I directed you to genesis is that there is a direct link there to the issue at hand (namely psalms 82), whether you “read” it that way is quite indifferent to the issue at hand, so therefore I’ll take you back to Yeshua’s reference to psalms 82. We are in agreement that the religious leaders were accusing him of claiming to be God, and therefore wished to stone him. (my opinion is that this is an excuse that they felt could be utilized in their favor, but that’s ONLY my opinion) The question is not whether he claimed deity (elohim) but rather the context he spoke in. Yeshua answered them with, does it not say in your law, ye are gods…. Look at the reference (psalms 82) he was not claiming equality with YHWH but was referencing himself as one of those who were of His counsel. ( elohim you are, children of the most high) The reference starts off as, you are elohim,.. and continues..but as man you shall die. Do you suppose that YHWH is in reference here? The interesting thing is that the rulers of Yeshua’s time made the same mistake as we do. Yeshua corrected them, but they refused it because it didn’t fit their agenda, but not because of plain speaking or truth. It should give us pause to consider that we stand in agreement with those who wished to destroy God’s anointed, because theology is a mind bender and has little or nothing to do with what God has declared as His will and purpose for this creation. I’ll leave off here, and I’m sorry for the length of my reply, but I’ll only say this in closing. Until you are able to question yourself in your own thinking, (i.e. WHY am I thinking this way) you’ll continue in the same vein. I’m pretty sure that you’re thinking I’m condemning you, but I’m writing this to not only challenge you but to respond in love. The slaves of Egypt were convinced that their purpose was to fulfill the desires of men, God told them they were here to fulfill the desires of Him.
YHWH bless you and keep you….
Hello Robert,
I appreciate the way you prefaced your comment. In fact, I was just telling someone earlier today that I appreciate that, though my views are different than others here, I’ve not felt that anyone has become confrontational. When commenting, I myself try to remain neutral in tone (not that I always succeed) – though tone of the written word is hard to read – even if I’m being somewhat direct. So, having said this, I wasn’t offended at all by your comment, as I like to read the views of others with whom I may disagree. It can either cause me to amend my views or to remain strengthened in them. My thinking is that it’s quite OK to ‘argue’ (put forth one’s views, even with strong conviction) but not to become argumentative.
In reading the entire context of the short Psalm 82, the subject is the unjust rulers, “gods”. Verse 6 is the one Jesus quotes, and verse 7 I read as the psalmist reminding them that, though they’ve been given ‘divine’ authority, they are mere mortal men. My understanding of Jesus’ point in quoting just this one verse of this psalm was as to provide a framework to make an analogy. He proceeds to do this by using the classic rabbinic method of arguing from the lesser to the greater – a common theme throughout John’s Gospel.
These “gods”, these rulers, were, in effect, the word of God to their constituents. How much more would the very Son of God have authority; how much more important should the words of God’s Son be? How much more important the One Who IS the Word of God made flesh? Jesus then proceeds once again to call God “My Father”. After mentioning yet again about the signs (the Jews ask for signs; Greeks, wisdom), He climaxes with the statement “the Father is in Me, and I in the Father”. This is a restatement of the earlier “I and the Father are one”.
I hope you (and other readers) find the above reasoning very plausible, if not probable.
I just found these pertinent comments by Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (The Anchor Yale Bible; {New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974 (1966)}):
[For the record, Brown is Roman Catholic, while I identify as non-denominational quasi-Protestant – but, I’m not protesting. 🙂 Some of his insights are profound.]
Brown’s introduction of the Jewish idea of shaliach is correct, but his conclusion isn’t. The fact that the envoy has the authority of the sender and is legally identified with the sender does NOT MAKE HIM the sender. It is like “power of attorney.” If I give my wife power of attorney to act while I am gone to South Africa, that does not mean that my wife’s name is now Skip and she is now male. Yeshua can legitimately present himself as the authorized and empowered representative of YHVH without claiming that he is YHVH. This would still engender offense from the Jews as they dispute his claim, but it does not mean that he claimed ontological identity.
Robert,
I quote you only because I’m not sure where this comment will end up – you wrote:
Again you miss the point that Yeshua identifies himself with the ‘Elohim” of the counsel of YHWH (Elohim), not YHWH Himself.
I understood your point, I just don’t agree. I’ll expound a bit to explain why. Your assertion here requires us to read into John 10 much more than Jesus actually states. Moreover, Jesus explicitly and emphatically does identify Himself with the Father in the final clause of verse 38 (“the Father is in Me, and I in the Father”). Hence, what He had done here was merely quote the portion relevant to the point He wanted to make. From the NIV:
“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?” Jesus is speaking to their desire to stone Him for blasphemy, “because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (v. 33). He then uses this part of Psalm 82:6 to set up a conditional clause (CAPS for additional emphasis):
If he [the Father] called them ‘gods’ to whom the word of God CAME…
what about the one whom the Father set apart/consecrated as his very own and SENT INTO the world?
The line of reasoning in this comparison sets up Jesus’ next rhetorical question:
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
He can claim to literally be God’s Son because the Father consecrated Him “as his very own”. And that then sets up the climax in the last clause of verse 38 (“the Father is in Me, and I in the Father”).
With respect, all the literature I read regarding the Son acting as agent of the Father is more analogous to a stronger kind of ‘Law of Agency’ than a power of attorney. Wikipedia is the only source I could find on short notice in this regard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency):
Of course, we cannot anachronistically impose modern day definitions upon the first century. However, throughout John’s Gospel especially Jesus stresses the fact that God the Father is HIS Father, which, of course, indicates relationship, implying that the two are of the same genus – a relationship far closer than any human to God the Father. This is aptly exemplified in the climax to this pericope: “the Father is in me, and I in the Father”. This certainly explicitly states that the two share the same essence in some fashion. They are obviously not the same ‘Person’ – one is the Father, the other the Son – but this implies, if not explicates, a certain ontological sameness.
I’ll try one more time. 🙂 You said, Your assertion here requires us to read into John 10 much more than Jesus actually states. What Jesus actually states in reply to the accusation is that in their law it says “ye are gods”. That’s the quote he uses to answer their accusation. The question for you is, who does that refer too? The “rest” of what he says can only be understood in the fashion you present it if you’re already committed to your ideology. I’m not sure how, “ye are gods” in psalms means one thing and the same quote in Matthew means an entirely different thing. I’m pretty sure we are going to have to agree to disagree at this point, and that’s ok. I appreciate the interaction, we need to thank Skip for making a place where the exchange of these ideas can be done comfortably. Keep praying and studying as will I and God will bring us both to the place we need to be.
Now WHAT CAN I SAY…
Discombobulated… ALL THE WAY!
Let me return to John1:1 – 14
The will of God or
Word and desire of God or
Christ or
Wisdom and fear of God and
Similar terms used in the bible…
All seem to point to one reality SALVATION – Yeshau the son of God not born out of the will or deed of man.
Sorry Skip but all I can do is exegete, I am an experiential learner…I will need to go and do and err again before I can start growing…
We need to be reborn into these principles to adhere to the teachings in the gospel literatures (Matthew – John)
Micah 6: 8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Matt 6: 33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Rom 14: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
So it is not about knowing these words etc. but about applying them in all walks of life and not only when the assembly is formed… so that we can be one with God and Christ and then Eph. 4 / 1 Cor. 12 will become a reality to serve and edify each other till we all come to this fullness of Christ (As complete in the deity or will of God as humanly possible).
Skip you said (the day we met) that the man is created to point out or reiterate the will of God and the woman is there to set boundaries…
Could this then be interpreted that we all should share our knowledge and insight until we all know understand and do more or less the same things (The resurrected body of Christ) and in doing this the assembly is created (Woman to support and protect – e.g. boundary setter).
This wisdom (Spirit of God) will guide us, as each of us are empowered into greater biblical truths and ways (1 Cor. 12:31).
Craig now I know for sure that all we can do as humans is to be available to be an apostle or prophet (emissary) for the will of God, we He so directs.
After all this is the only true choice we have concerning the will of God; to discuss in-depth…
Yes we have the choice to do sin or not, but that what we see as sin may just be how God is empowering us so that we do not further these crippling habits, but rather further the things that help us grow in wisdom and fear for God.
Seeker,
Each member of the body of Christ has different roles, so to speak (see Romans 12). We just have to seek God for His will for our life.
I think what you may have been hinting at earlier is the doctrine of God’s omnipresence. I don’t think anyone would debate that Father God is omnipresent, that is, he is everywhere present. Considering the myriad NT Scriptures which speak on the Holy Spirit indwelling – and the Holy Spirit is also considered a ‘Person’ by His characteristics (1 Cor. 12:11 [HE has a will*]; 1 Thess. 5:19-20 [dispenses knowledge/power]; Eph. 4:30 [can be grieved]) – certainly, we cannot think of each individual Christ-follower as having individual ‘Holy Spirits’. In other words, there aren’t as many ‘Holy Spirits’ as there have been, are, and will be Christians! It’s all the same Spirit (Eph 4:4), in no way diminished by being ‘parceled’ up, so to speak, among individual believers.
Carrying this idea further, it’s not a stretch to conceive that Christ has the fullness of Deity in Him (Col 2:9, John 1:1, 14, etc.) as well, not distinct in essence from the Deity of the Holy Spirit. But then this still kinda sounds like three gods to some, which would be tritheism, aka polytheism, instead. That’s not Scriptural at all! While we may not be able to comprehend how this can be that the Three are yet One, the early church called it as such: There is one essence; that is, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be consubstantial, of the same substance, with each other; and, what differentiates them is termed prosōpon, the Greek term for face, countenance, meant figuratively, as we know God doesn’t actually have a physical appearance, since He’s incorporeal. This is why I use ‘Person’ in quotes in reference to the individual members of the Trinity, so as to differentiate between its use here and one modern meaning of the term.
In the second clause of John 1:1, and the Word was with God, the Greek word for “with” is the preposition pros. In its dynamic, actional sense it means “toward”, “to”; in its static, stative sense it means “near”, or “facing”. One can see a relationship between pros here and the word prosōpon, the term the early church used in describing the individual characteristics and roles of the Father, in differentiation from the Son, and in differentiation from the Spirit.
There are a few who’ve concluded that the Father, Son, and Spirit are each God; however, they believe that each is an individual mode of God. In other words, God only appears as one mode at a time, never as more than one. This is known as modalism. I noted above that Tertullian wrote about Sabellius (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellius), who apparently believed the Father was the God of the OT, the Son of the NT era, and the Holy Spirit for the present age (we have no writings of Sabellius, so we’re reliant upon Tertullian’s understanding). This is considered heresy.
*Most Trinitarians believe that Scripture indicates that the Godhead has one will, that each ‘Person’ does not have His own separate will, as this would seem to make it possible that ‘God could will to do something against Himself’. Similarly, most believe the Trinity has one Divine mind.
Thank you. Craig, As for Trinitarians 1 John 5:7 Three that bear record, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV) While the ESV just states that there are three that testify… Very confusing and dependent on translators view…
I self base my view on the KJV as have been using it since I can remember.
As is the great commission in Mat 28:19 baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Three entities…
Thank you I am following.
Seeker,
Great! One thing I must note, though. Most textual critics (scholars who assess all the extant Greek manuscripts) reject 1 John 5:7 as original to John’s first epistle. Given the evidence, I agree. See here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html
Some have even criticized Matthew 28:19 as not being evidence of the Trinity based on grammar, but I don’t find that argument persuasive. I think it’s great evidence of the Trinity. However, I don’t rely on it as a primary basis in defending the doctrine (dogma, as per Skip here), partly because of the (weak, in my view) counter argument.
as Craig noted, 1 John 5:7 was a marginal note scribbled by some monk and later incorporated into the English translation. It is NOT original.
Seeker,
Great! One thing I must note, though. Most textual critics (scholars who assess all the extant Greek manuscripts) reject 1 John 5:7 as original to John’s first epistle. Given the evidence, I agree. See here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum
Some have even criticized Matthew 28:19 as not being evidence of the Trinity based on grammar, but I don’t find that argument persuasive. I think it’s great evidence of the Trinity. However, I don’t rely on it as a primary basis in defending the doctrine (dogma, as per Skip here), partly because of the (weak, in my view) counter argument.
Thank you… A note scribbled – interesting comment.
I am ready to move on. Maybe much later we should discuss the great commission and it’s implications for believers today.
Have a great day.
Okay, God is the creator of everything including the spoken word.
The spirit of God leads and directs individuals… Would this solely be the word of truth which Yeshua explained it as to his disciples?
The Son of God saves as is his naming… If I understand the Hebraic view naming is about role or purpose…
Given these records and the claim that it is Moses that will judge…
I can only deduct that Moses the 613 laws are the measure against which we will be judged to determine how much we try to achieve the 10 commandments (the truth of God’s desire from us as humans)
And now was it not the same God that told Moses that He is they He is…
Is it not therefore when we follow the laws to achieve the commandments that we reveal the essence of the Son…
If this be true would this not be why Paul could make the statement that they received him as Jesus Christ…
And if this is correct would this not be way Yeshua said we study the scriptures to find salvation when all it does is testify concerning Him…
We cannot have the same fullness of the deity but can reveal specific attributes of the deity and it is this revelation that the world awaits as this will then be the end of the world… From Genesis till Revelations we are reminded to become doers of God’s will…
And this is eternal life that they know God and the Jesus Christ sent (John 17:3).
Resulting from this we will not notice the manifestation of salvation until we acknowledge blessed is he that comes in the name of God.. And then Matt 26:64.
Too much exegesis…
Yes Seeker, Yeshua did say we should study the scriptures. The only scriptures that were available at Yeshua”s time were what we call the Old Testament, the Torah and the Tanach. The New Testament was not brought into existence for until a long time later possibly at the end of the first century.
Seeker,
In the OT era, Mosaic Law (the Law of Moses) was all there was. An annual sacrifice was required for the sins of Israel because no one could keep the Law perfectly. However, Messiah has come as a once-for-all sacrifice! No longer do we need to be bound by the Law. In the NT era, we are under the age of Grace.
Yet, in the age of Grace we are still required to obey the Ten Commandments. But there’s a difference. Through belief in the Messiah and the subsequent Holy Spirit indwelling, it is by submission, by obedience to the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26) that we can keep the Commandments. But, when we decide to not submit to the Spirit, when we do things by our inherent sinful nature – and we all do at times – we invariably break them. But with contrition and praying for forgiveness of these sins, of this breaking of the Law, we receive grace (Jesus is “full of grace and truth” – John 1:14).
Today those who reject Messiah’s sacrificial atonement for sin will live and die by the Law – the Law that no one can live perfectly. It’s much better to accept Christ/Messiah’s sacrifice to the full and live by grace!
Yes, Matthew 1:21 tells us that the name Jesus/Yeshua means ‘the one who saves’. And, Matthew 1:23 calls him Emmanuel, which means “God with us”. Jesus, God in the flesh, saves us from the penalty of the Law!
I think you may be incorporated Luther and Augustine into your view of what sacrificial atonement of the cross. I wrote a book about this. Yom Kippur is not about “not being able to keep the law.” And I don’t find support for the idea that the cross was a “once for all sacrifice.” Quite simply, nothing about the death on the cross actually fits the requirements for a sacrifice for sin. It seems that you are reading Paul as if he is Luther’s scribe. Take a look at Gager, Ruther, Sanders, Eisenbaum, Young, Gorelik, Hegg, etc on this. The Reformers were, frankly, completely misdirected in their views of Paul. Another very long discussion, I’m afraid. I have a lecture on some of this: The Formation of the Christian Church. Lloyd Gaston goes so far as the suggest that the proper reading of the NT as a JEWISH document calls into question the very existence of the Church as a biblical entity. Harold O. J. Brown said much the same thing 30 years ago, but no one who is part of the Christian tradition seems to be listening.
So then what is Hebrews 10 all about?
Hi Craig,
You wrote- An annual sacrifice was required for the sins of Israel because no one could keep the Law perfectly. However, Messiah has come as a once-for-all sacrifice! No longer do we need to be bound by the Law.
Would you mean, we no longer need sacrifices, in these days of GRACE, that we can keep the Law, which really means Torah, perfectly; we no longer WILL sin/ transgress against His / יהוה ’s ways, after Yeshua’s “sacrifice” to take away all mankind’s sins?
We no longer need HIS word/ Torah /law to direct our paths?
Some, those without discipline, will continue to transgress willfully; some ignorantly, when they are comfortable where they are at, not digging/ going further.
And, mankind no longer need a Tabernacle, Temple, to settle issues; you prefer the secular Courts where injustice and corruption prevail, being reminded the days of LAWLESSNESS / Torah- lessness,even now has descended upon mankind.
That would be the day we look forward to, where the entire humanity is PERFECTED, learning through suffering, as Yeshua did, to be given that high honour of Son, Judge and Heir, to sit at יהוה ’s right hand of power and authority to rule and reign
יהוה / YHWH has ever been with us, through the ages, being “God with us” , as His mercies and lovingkindness /chesed are new every morning! As we truly repent / turn back to His ways, HE / YHWH will not remember them.
The Israelites of old and Am Israel /People of Israel do “SEE” God, YHWH, Who is a Spirit. Can one see a spirit, unless manifested, in a ‘physical’ sort of way, as in creation?
Do we need to SEE God YHWH in “the flesh” to believe He exists? I/we should see HIM, YHWH all the time!
I see YHWH all the time, in my life, transforming my thoughts and lifestyle.
Like Skip, and Robert, I am on a journey, learning, seeking for wisdom and understanding in what have been lost in translations, that has robbed us much. Shalom!
Ester,
You asked: Would you mean, we no longer need sacrifices, in these days of GRACE, that we can keep the Law, which really means Torah, perfectly; we no longer WILL sin/ transgress against His / יהוה ’s ways, after Yeshua’s “sacrifice” to take away all mankind’s sins? We no longer need HIS word/ Torah /law to direct our paths?
Thanks for engaging me here. To see my perspective, which is truly a Biblical one, please read Hebrews 8 through 10. The writer of Hebrews is very explicit that the OT sacrificial system is rendered obsolete with Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice (see also Psalm 40:6-8). Yet, undoubtedly, all still sin. However, Christ’s sacrifice means we no longer need the high priest to make atonement for our sins (Heb 9:26, 10:12), ; through Jesus Messiah, the new High Priest, we have the privilege of ‘entering the Most Holy Place’ by His blood shed on the cross (Heb 10:19-24). This means we can ask forgiveness for those sins we will inevitably commit without a high priest as mediator, as Christ became our High Priest forever; we will be forgiven by God the Father because of our belief in Messiah’s sacrifice on our behalf.
But the Torah is not exactly the same as the OT. The Book of Acts makes it clear that Gentile males do not need to be circumcised. Specifically, the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-29) stated that Gentiles should ‘not be burdened with the anything beyond the following requirements’ [from NASB]: “that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well.” The Ten Commandments are, of course, still absolute; yet, all will break them. However, we are forgiven of any sin provided we are contrite, provided we ask for forgiveness in Messiah’s name and then the Father freely bestows his grace.
You wrote: And, mankind no longer need a Tabernacle, Temple, to settle issues; you prefer the secular Courts where injustice and corruption prevail, being reminded the days of LAWLESSNESS / Torah- lessness, even now has descended upon mankind.
With respect, you’ve erected a straw man. In previous comments I’ve pointed out how the physical Temple is 1) obsolete (Hebrews 8:6-13), and 2) now inside the believer (1 Cor. 3:16-17, 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16-18). This does not mean we’ve done away with authority. The church has authority in matters of church discipline among members (see 1 Corinthians 5-6:8).
You wrote: The Israelites of old and Am Israel /People of Israel do “SEE” God, YHWH, Who is a Spirit. Can one see a spirit, unless manifested, in a ‘physical’ sort of way, as in creation?
Of course we recognize God through creation or, as Moses, in the burning bush; however, Scripture is abundantly clear that we “cannot see God and live” (Exodus 33:20), and that “no one sees/has seen God ever” (John 1:18). Yet Jesus certainly did, to the point he followed what He saw the Father doing (John 5:19-20ff).
You wrote: Do we need to SEE God YHWH in “the flesh” to believe He exists? I/we should see HIM, YHWH all the time!
Of course not; in fact, “blessed are those who have not seen me [Christ/Messiah] and yet have believed” (NIV, John 20:29).
You wrote: …His mercies and lovingkindness /chesed are new every morning!
Amen to that! The difference in the NT era is that we no longer need to high priest to make an annual atonement. Christ/Messiah is The Atonement!
I am not trying to butt into this dialogue and I am really busy in South Africa, but I must say that the interpretation of Hebrews and Acts that you suggest (Craig) is the traditional Christian point of view that basically ignores the midrashic approach of the author of Hebrews and the intended audience of Paul. On this subject please see Bob Gorelik’s work on Hebrews and Mark Nanos on Paul. You can, of course, read these texts as if they were Christian, but they aren’t. Written by Jews for Jews within Jewish context they must be understood very differently than through the eyes of Augustine and Luther. I know that this open a great can of worms, but I have written a lot about this over the last eleven years so I just can’t go back through it all again. Just pointing out that your claim of interpreting the text this way is not the ONLY way to read the text and certainly is not the way it would be read from a Jewish perspective.
Was the activities on which the NT is written for Jews or heathens (the lost sheep and other non believers) to be restored or called into one faith?
And should we not read it as restoration doctrine rather than Jews teachings…
I don’t mind at all your weighing in here. While I do agree that some passages can have more than one level of meaning, when the Scriptures appear to speak plainly, to my way of thinking it seems imprudent to reject their plain sense in favor of some other meaning in reinterpreting metaphorically. A Midrashic (aggadic) metaphorical approach may certainly be warranted in, e.g., wisdom literature; but, with instruction, i.e. doctrinal issues, it just makes sense to interpret the text literally (halakha). And that seems the best way to view the Book of Hebrews and Paul’s writings.
In any case, I want to understand the perspective here. Briefly, what would be the Midrashic interpretations of these texts below in Hebrews [all Scripture below from NASB]?
And the ones which compare and contrast the Law with Grace (faith) in Galatians, in which Paul’s apparent point is to rebuke those reverting back to the Torah and influencing others with same?:
Reverting back to the Law after accepting Grace (faith) actually severs one from Messiah!:
Now, of course, there may well be instances of metaphorical expressions within instruction in order to make a point. In an article I wrote years ago, I referenced the Babylonian Talmud as the possible expression of a preceding oral tradition that may have prompted Paul’s words in Galatians 4:19 – “My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you”: He who teaches the son of his neighbour the Torah, Scripture ascribes it to him as if he had begotten him (see here: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_19.html at text referencing footnote 37).
Craig two parallel verses come to mind
Rom 6 1-14 especially 10 which just reiterates Jesus teachings that we need to take up our own cross and follow him Matt 16 24-28 and it is this principle that saves not the once off crucifixion. So what Jesus did was introduce the divine calling in its fullness and not a new dispensation as what is happening since 260 AC.
Seeker,
Let’s assume for the moment that you are correct in what you say regarding Romans 6:1-14 and Matt 16:24-28. How do you harmonize that with Hebrews chapter 10, especially 10:12?
Seeker,
Actually, it’s best to start in chapter 8 of Hebrews in order to get the full context. So, what I’m suggesting is read Hebrews 8-10:39
Craig
Thank you… Your earlier reference to the new tabernacle, is how I understand the complete records of the NT. It Is with man, how God uses and empowers individuals. The new covenant…
No longer needed to jump on a plane to Jerusalem to be prepared by God. Or rather pilgrimage to the promised land as this happens all over, anytime… That for me is the new path of separation or holiness we are called too. No longer a gathering although the dialogue of the gathering is very important for sanctification and edifying of our ongoing harmony to praise God. You said role of each member earlier…
Footnote: I once read that Hebrews was the only guidelines Paul actually wrote for the followers of the tribes of Judah rather than the tribes of Israel or the heathens as was his other records and that I should approach my understanding of it as such… I would not know if this is true…
Seeker,
You’re welcome. If you read Romans 6 with the understanding of Hebrews 8-10 – with Christ’s death on the Cross a once-for-all sacrifice for sins (10:12), thereby rendering obsolete the killing of bulls and goats to take away sins (10:3) – then Paul’s point is that we ‘sacrifice ourselves daily’ in service to God.
As you correctly deduced, believers are the new sanctuary, with the Spirit of God living inside guiding us as we submit.
Side note: No one is certain who authored the Book of Hebrews. Some, however, do think it was Paul.
Another side note: As I read afresh 9:13-14 it provides another example of the rabbinic method of arguing from the lesser to the greater.
Craig
The lesser implying the temporal approach to the greater the “more” permanent approach…
Let’s take up the calling to sacrifice ourselves for his purpose not our personal life goal, is that the process to overcome sin completely. One death for sin at a time…
Going back to the OP: “…Considerable discussion surrounds the fact that theos is not accompanied by a definite article (e.g. ho theos). In Greek, this means that the term is general, not specific. In other words, the phrase means that the word has the same character as God, but not the same identity. “ . . .in Greek, ‘God’ (theos) without the article really means ‘having the quality of God,’ not being one-to-one identified with God.”[1] Buzzard concludes:
I’ll agree with most of this; it’s the opening premise on which I’ll wholly depart for reasons explained below: “The deity of Jesus must be inferred from all of the supposed Trinitarian Scriptures. In other words, this is a paradigm issue of interpretation, not a direct translation or exegesis.” By necessity, the following is technical.
Firstly, the absence of the article doesn’t necessarily mean theos “is general, not specific” (which would mean “a god”). For example, sometimes names such as Paul, Peter, etc. have the article, other times not; yet, each time clearly Paul and Peter are obviously specific entities. Context determines definiteness, indefiniteness, or qualitativeness – or the latter in combination with one of the former.
The next sentence, and Buzzard/Hunting’s citation of Denny preceding the blockquote above, is correct in that, by its grammatical construction, theos expresses qualitativeness (“same character”) and not exact congruency with ton theov (accusative {direct object} form of ho theos) in “the Word was with God”. “[H]aving the quality of God” is exactly correct! But, there’s more to it, which I’ll illustrate with two examples in John’s Gospel, the first of which is 8:31.
Like 1:1, 8:31 has the predicate nominative without the article and before the verb: mathētai mou este, disciples-my-are. That is, those who hold to Jesus’ teachings are His disciples. Clearly, these are not merely ‘some random disciples’ (non-specific, indefinite); they are a particular kind – “My disciples.” Yet, the context is more about a certain quality of these disciples; meeting the condition of ‘holding to Jesus’ teachings’, they will have the characteristics and qualities of being Messiah’s disciples. But, at the same time, they are specific disciples. In other words, the grammatical construction in conjunction with the context points to qualitativeness and definiteness, with the former predominant.
The Gospel of John uses this particular grammatical construction – lack of article before predicate nominative which precedes its verb – a total of 66 times, and the large majority of instances finds it qualitative with an underlying definiteness. This same syntax is found in 1:14: sarx egeneto, flesh-became. This cannot mean the non-specific “a flesh”. Even “the flesh” seems too specific, as, if that’s the case, the heresy of adoptionism obtains: the Word became/adopted the flesh of a certain existing person. The obvious meaning here is that the Word became flesh consistent with that of every other human; that is, the Word took on flesh of the same quality and nature of all humanity. In short, “flesh” is qualitative here, with an underlying definiteness in that it’s human flesh as opposed to, e.g., animal flesh.
So, what then of 1:1? Context will assist us. The first clause, in its larger context to include verse 3, points to the Word’s preexistence with respect to creation, since He is the agent of creation. This implies that the Word is uncreated – unless we impose upon this text the view that the Word is actually Wisdom, in which case the Word is a created entity. But is that any different than imposing a Trinitarian schema upon the text? I submit we do neither and let the text speak for itself.
The second clause describes the Word’s relationship with God [the Father]: and the Word was with God. Taking the first two clauses together we could paraphrase: In the beginning the Word existed with God. Taken as a whole, and including verse 3, this implies the Word’s eternality – the Word exists in relationship with God [the Father], preexisting creation, and is the vehicle through which creation came about. Thus, considering the context, theos here is best seen as qualitative: The Word exhibits the quality and nature of God [the Father]. In other words, though the Word is a separate entity, He possesses the same nature and quality of the Father. There is no implication that this is in some diminished sense, though we must investigate further.
But, is the Word “a god”? Clearly, polytheism in not congruent with the Shema; however, is the Word “a god” in the diminished sense akin to a human ruler? This is where the larger context of John’s Gospel provides the answer. All Jesus’ (Word-become-flesh) personal references to God as “My Father” was universally understood by His opponents as a claim that He was equal to God (5:18; 7:29; 10: 31, 33, 39). Therefore, exegetically, it seems best to understand this as qualitative, though with an underlying definiteness, as opposed to indefiniteness: and the Word was God by nature.
This does not mean that we are now in violation of the Shema. With the exegesis here, God is still one in the absolute sense, but somehow the Word shares in undiminished Deity.
I am always cautious when someone talks about “the plain meaning of the text.” The text is always interpreted, just as all of our communication from one person to another is interpreted. So, unless we know Paul’s mind as he knew it, we will have to deal with our interpretation of Paul’s words, something that is often not very plain. In this case, we need to know the audience, the reason for writing, the language used as understood by the writer and the audience (not by us), the circumstances being addressed, the general context of Paul’s involvement with the Galatians, the identification of those Paul opposes, etc. I suggested Mark Nanos’ work on Galatians because these are precisely the issues he attempts to address. And what he discovers is that the usual reading of Paul (i.e., as a Christian apologists contrasting law and grace) is not only not Pauline (as many others have observed) but overlooks the actual audience that Paul addresses and the issue that Paul is writing about. In other words, Paul is not Luther. He is not opposing law and grace. He is writing about the claims of some orthodox Jews that one cannot worship YHVH or be part of the assembly without first becoming a Jew. The discussion here is lengthy, but there are plenty of sources that speak about this. Nanos is only one of a dozen recognized scholars who have abandoned the Lutheran interpretation of the text as not Pauline. I suggest you start there before we spend any more time on this particular issue.
“He is writing about the claims of some orthodox Jews that one cannot worship YHVH or be part of the assembly without first becoming a Jew.”
On that we agree. I found a site of Nanos works, and I’ve skimmed a few pdfs. I’ll look at some more. Thanks.
Good day All.
A lot is being said on wisdom, law obedience and faith… All these come unto us through the teachings and interpretation of WORDS. Is this not what we should read here. I have come to appreciate that the laws are there to help us live healthy, ear what is beneficial for the body, shape and protect relationships, govern societies and has very little to do with serving God per se as a religious prerequisite…
My question on the Torah is whether God was referring to these with the Passover instruction that the bones of the lamb may not be broken, as was the peculiar difference in Yeshua crucifixion… They did not break the bones as was the norm to expedite or confirm death. The number of positive laws are the same number of bones in the human body… Coincidence? No God is specific in His ways. To Passover or be reborn we must learn to understand and appreciate the laws… Was it not Yeshua that said it is these laws that discipline us to or in Christ…
Jeremiah 31:33 [NASB]:
Hebrews 10:16-17:
Psalm 40:6-8:
Yes, Craig
God needs nothing we can do or create for Him. We need everything He has introduced to us through the ages by means of selected servants.
Skip thank you for this platform to discuss. May your visit in our sunny province of Gauteng be an interesting stay.
Craig we are created in Christ unto good works… Who or what be this Christ other than the power and wisdom of God. Moses declared that the will of God he introduced the initial 10 words are important as you said. Given that Yeshua of 2000 years ago is the same as Moses 5600 years ago and Abraham, Joseph etc. All only became living expressions (image and likeness) of God through their calling. As for Yeshua this was even more exclusive in that the fullness of God’s power and wisdom was vested in Him. You said he is a fellow servant not to be worshipped… For me rather to listen to and appreciate his teachings as they are Spirit and life. John 1:1 explained by Yeshua himself…
You said let the records speak for themselves, they are shouting out to us adhere to these instructions and we will overcome the world… For he that is born of God overcomes the world and that is… Our Faith. Shema hearing and doing. Numbers 6:24-27
Seeker,
Regarding your statement addressed to me, You said he is a fellow servant not to be worshipped…, it seems I’ve not been clear on something, i.e., you’ve misunderstood me. Yes, Jesus is the same flesh as Moses, you and me; however, I’ve not said He is not to be worshiped. The implications of my exegesis of John 1:1 portray the opposite.
For me rather to listen to and appreciate his teachings as they are Spirit and life. John 1:1 explained by Yeshua himself…
Yes! The Word spoke through Word-made-flesh (Messiah), and, pre-incarnate Messiah explains John 1:1 – I’ll return to this in a minute. John 1:18 states that with the words of the One who is eis ton kolpon tou patros, (almost word-for-word) “in the bosom of the Father”, it is He who ekeinos exēgēsato, “him-‘exegeted’”, or “’exegeted’/explained him”.
As Skip observed on another TW (https://skipmoen.com/2012/08/exceptions-to-the-rule/), Revelation 13:8 indicates “that somehow Yeshua’s sacrifice occurred before the world was created, but wasn’t revealed until the event in human history.” The syntax of this particular verse actually allows one of two interpretations: (1) He was slain from the creation of the world, or (2) the writing of the names into the Book of Life occurred from the foundations of the world. To accept (2) would seem to necessitate (1), as it appears difficult to have a Book of Life unless there first had been a Life Giver. Therefore, Messiah predates creation!
Craig
Rev 19:10
John 6:63
Matt 26:64
Word must be adopted by flesh vessel for God to bring peace, righteousness and joy… Manifest His kingdom on earth.
Or am I reading to much in John 1:1-18?